Clerical abuse!

Started by D4S, May 20, 2009, 05:09:14 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

We all know this disgusting scandal is as a result of The Church and The State, but who do you hold mostly accountable, and should therefore pay out the most in compensation to victims?

The State
The Church
Split 50/50

Declan

QuoteWas listening to one man this morning who was getting the shite knocked out of him every day but who didn't mention anything to his mother when she visited every month - when asked why he said he didn't want to upset his mother more than she was already. His crime ?? He stole a bicycle !

A neighbour of my wife's wrote a book about his experiences in Artane - The reason he ended up there was that his father died when he was quite young and his mother was left raising a few kids alone. A male relation , think it was an uncle, used call to the house on a regular enough basis to help out. Nothing going on with the young widow but a neighbour complained to the local PP re "immoral behaviour" etc and together with the local Sergeant the kids were taken off the woman and sent to these hell holes. This was in the 30s but gives an indication of the sort of atmosphere that existed.

How the people who perpertrated this abuse have not been named and ashamed in the public courts is beyond me.

Far from the ideals that Edmund Rice had when he set them up!

Jim_Murphy_74

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 21, 2009, 07:19:58 PM
Jim, where is your criticism of the state?  The authorities knew all along what was going on and refused to do anything about it.  You can't only blame the Church if you are being even-handed about it.

If you read my posts you would see that the first line of my first post is that the state were utlimate responsible for what happened.  I couldn't be clearer about it. 


orangeman

The only way that there can be any sense of victims getting justice is by being adequately compensated, properly treated psychologically and each one of them getting a personal apology from the Church.


The government need to look again at the figure of € 127m that the church gave over - it should be 10 times this amount - thy can well afford it.


And finally, any priest, brother, bishop, cardinal, nun who was in any way complicit should come out and admit their guilt as there are still people in positions of authority who were complicit in all of this evil.


This last bit won't happen by the way.

Donagh

Quote from: orangeman on May 22, 2009, 09:39:43 AM
The only way that there can be any sense of victims getting justice is by being adequately compensated, properly treated psychologically and each one of them getting a personal apology from the Church.

The government need to look again at the figure of € 127m that the church gave over - it should be 10 times this amount - thy can well afford it.

And finally, any priest, brother, bishop, cardinal, nun who was in any way complicit should come out and admit their guilt as there are still people in positions of authority who were complicit in all of this evil.

This last bit won't happen by the way.

As far as I know the Church has apologised numerous time, but a few other questions:

Why should the Church pay? If you were abused in a prison who wouldn't sue the prision but the State.

Besides the large amount of false claims, how would you decide who gets compensation? Would someone who was sexually abused and someone who got a clout around the ear get the same amount?

Most of the radio phone-ins I'm hearing relate mainly to verbal/emotional abuse and some 'beatings'. If you say those people should get compensation does that not also mean all of us over 35 who were beat at school by lay teachers should also get compensation? Should it stop there i.e. should everyone who was beaten by their parents not also get compensation?

orangeman

Quote from: Donagh on May 22, 2009, 09:56:16 AM
Quote from: orangeman on May 22, 2009, 09:39:43 AM
The only way that there can be any sense of victims getting justice is by being adequately compensated, properly treated psychologically and each one of them getting a personal apology from the Church.

The government need to look again at the figure of € 127m that the church gave over - it should be 10 times this amount - thy can well afford it.

And finally, any priest, brother, bishop, cardinal, nun who was in any way complicit should come out and admit their guilt as there are still people in positions of authority who were complicit in all of this evil.

This last bit won't happen by the way.

As far as I know the Church has apologised numerous time, but a few other questions:

Why should the Church pay? If you were abused in a prison who wouldn't sue the prision but the State.

Besides the large amount of false claims, how would you decide who gets compensation? Would someone who was sexually abused and someone who got a clout around the ear get the same amount?

Most of the radio phone-ins I'm hearing relate mainly to verbal/emotional abuse and some 'beatings'. If you say those people should get compensation does that not also mean all of us over 35 who were beat at school by lay teachers should also get compensation? Should it stop there i.e. should everyone who was beaten by their parents not also get compensation?

Cos they've already paid - back then CHURCH = STATE. So both are paying except that the church has paid about 10% so far.

There's beating and then there were floggings with all sorts of perverted sideshows - bit of a difference.

orangeman

The controversy sparked by the Ryan Commission's landmark findings turned political yesterday evening with the Minister for Education, Batt O'Keeffe, ruling out - for legal reasons - any renegotiation of the Catholic Church's liability to compensate survivors.

Minister O'Keeffe was responding to Opposition fury over the 2002 deal between his predecessor, Michael Woods, and the religious that looks set to land the orders with a tenth of the bill, with the taxpayer paying about €1bn.

However, Mr O'Keeffe also invited the Catholic congregations to consider shouldering more of the burden.

The Christian Brothers' responded that the deal was made in good faith and was the fairest that could have been struck seven years ago.

CORI, which facilitated the 18 Orders in making it, said it was not aware that any of them was planning a renegotiation.

Meanwhile, the Commission's unprecedented official confirmation that the religious institutionally abused tens of thousands of children after the courts locked them up in Catholic institutions has triggered a mounting cry for help from abuse victims.


Donagh

Quote from: orangeman on May 22, 2009, 10:00:39 AM
Cos they've already paid - back then CHURCH = STATE. So both are paying except that the church has paid about 10% so far.

There's beating and then there were floggings with all sorts of perverted sideshows - bit of a difference.

The Church and State may have been connected but they didn't and don't share a common treasury or pot of money so to say the Church should pay more is just vindictive. The State was ultimately responsible for placing the children in these places and allowing the abuse to continue, so they are liable not the Church. The Church has paid 10% of the agreed compensation which is probably more than they've be forced to do by any court.

I don't get your second comment. There were beatings, floggings and everything in between, so are you saying everyone should get compensated? Does that include those who were beaten by lay teachers in schools?

Jim_Murphy_74


Quote from: Donagh on May 22, 2009, 09:56:16 AM
Besides the large amount of false claims, how would you decide who gets compensation? Would someone who was sexually abused and someone who got a clout around the ear get the same amount?

Donagh,

There is already a board of redress set up to check the veracity of claims and decide appropriate payment. 

Quote from: Donagh on May 22, 2009, 09:56:16 AM
Why should the Church pay? If you were abused in a prison who wouldn't sue the prision but the State.

If the government must pay out compensation it has to come from somewhere.  Seeing as the government in essence had the church working for them (monies were received!) I think the state is perfectly entitled to seek financial input from the church.   Was this not the essence of the deal made by Michael Woods?    Given that records since found (for example the Christian Brother files that had been moved to Rome) indicate the church's knowledge of the crimes was much broader than conceeded at the time, I think the state need to revisit that agreement.

If taken via the courts, the church will have to pay and that has already been shown.

The principal vulnerability in the church's defence is that they moved this pricks around when they knew they had committed offences.  Most successful cases against them have hinged on that.   It is not the fact that the perpetrator was a church member but the fact that the church organisational helped that perpetrator.

The more worrying aspect is the fact the underlying issue in that behaviour (protection of reputation etc..) is still evident today.  Look at Cloyne earlier this year.......


orangeman

Quote from: Donagh on May 22, 2009, 10:08:19 AM
Quote from: orangeman on May 22, 2009, 10:00:39 AM
Cos they've already paid - back then CHURCH = STATE. So both are paying except that the church has paid about 10% so far.

There's beating and then there were floggings with all sorts of perverted sideshows - bit of a difference.

The Church and State may have been connected but they didn't and don't share a common treasury or pot of money so to say the Church should pay more is just vindictive. The State was ultimately responsible for placing the children in these places and allowing the abuse to continue, so they are liable not the Church. The Church has paid 10% of the agreed compensation which is probably more than they've be forced to do by any court.

I don't get your second comment. There were beatings, floggings and everything in between, so are you saying everyone should get compensated? Does that include those who were beaten by lay teachers in schools?


I'm saying there's a difference in getting a slap form a teacher and regular floggings.

The redress board can deal wth this.

The Church should pay more than 10% - thwy were responsible for most of it - ok the state was the organising body but as I said the state equalled the church back then. That's why 10% isn't enough. They've got maasive resources.


Look at what happened in the USA and how their claims of abuse were dealt with and how much the church there had to pay.

Declan

To my mind the Christian Brothers should now voluntarily disband and all their assets sold and ring fenced into a victims fund to be administered via the redress board.

Unfortunately I think the "state's" involvement in all this will be understated and all the talk will be about the religious orders being made to pay etc. successive governments and departments to my mind are equally complicit as the orders but I don't think that message is getting out there. Oh and who was in power for the majority of this time - Any guesses???

Donagh

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on May 22, 2009, 10:13:28 AM

If the government must pay out compensation it has to come from somewhere.  Seeing as the government in essence had the church working for them (monies were received!) I think the state is perfectly entitled to seek financial input from the church.   Was this not the essence of the deal made by Michael Woods?    Given that records since found (for example the Christian Brother files that had been moved to Rome) indicate the church's knowledge of the crimes was much broader than conceeded at the time, I think the state need to revisit that agreement.

If taken via the courts, the church will have to pay and that has already been shown.

The principal vulnerability in the church's defence is that they moved this pricks around when they knew they had committed offences.  Most successful cases against them have hinged on that.   It is not the fact that the perpetrator was a church member but the fact that the church organisational helped that perpetrator.

The more worrying aspect is the fact the underlying issue in that behaviour (protection of reputation etc..) is still evident today.  Look at Cloyne earlier this year.......



The State sought input from the Church and it was given, I don't understand why people are now demanding they pay more, particularly now that things have changed. E100 million is a lot of cash for the Irish Church to pay over. More than adequate IMO.

Re Cloyne - Magee fecked up his administrative procedures and was forced to go. Rather than evidence that the Church is still trying to protect abusers, I would see Magee's removal as evidence that the Church has changed.

Donagh

Quote from: orangeman on May 22, 2009, 10:16:46 AM

I'm saying there's a difference in getting a slap form a teacher and regular floggings.

The redress board can deal wth this.

The Church should pay more than 10% - thwy were responsible for most of it - ok the state was the organising body but as I said the state equalled the church back then. That's why 10% isn't enough. They've got maasive resources.


Look at what happened in the USA and how their claims of abuse were dealt with and how much the church there had to pay.

So are you now saying that the Church should pay because they've got the money regardless of who was liable? Okay if we run with that argument, do you have figures to support your claim that the Church has the money you claim they have?

Donagh

Quote from: Declan on May 22, 2009, 10:19:46 AM
To my mind the Christian Brothers should now voluntarily disband and all their assets sold and ring fenced into a victims fund to be administered via the redress board.

Unfortunately I think the "state's" involvement in all this will be understated and all the talk will be about the religious orders being made to pay etc. successive governments and departments to my mind are equally complicit as the orders but I don't think that message is getting out there. Oh and who was in power for the majority of this time - Any guesses???

Including their schools? What will happen to the students? How about the drug and alcohol centres? Youth centres? Community halls? In the current economic climate, who do you think will be buying these assets?

orangeman

Quote from: Donagh on May 22, 2009, 10:25:47 AM
Quote from: orangeman on May 22, 2009, 10:16:46 AM

I'm saying there's a difference in getting a slap form a teacher and regular floggings.

The redress board can deal wth this.

The Church should pay more than 10% - thwy were responsible for most of it - ok the state was the organising body but as I said the state equalled the church back then. That's why 10% isn't enough. They've got maasive resources.


Look at what happened in the USA and how their claims of abuse were dealt with and how much the church there had to pay.

So are you now saying that the Church should pay because they've got the money regardless of who was liable? Okay if we run with that argument, do you have figures to support your claim that the Church has the money you claim they have?


Go to Land Registry, Belfast and look under Sean Brady for starters.

Ditto for Dublin.

Donagh

Quote from: orangeman on May 22, 2009, 10:31:14 AM
Go to Land Registry, Belfast and look under Sean Brady for starters.

Ditto for Dublin.

Does that mean you don't have any figures?